Slashdot Mirror
Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples
EvanKai writes "To celebrate Grey Tuesday, Eminem sues Apple to show his support for hiphop and sampling. CBS MarketWatch is reporting
that 'Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission. Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.' While the ad in question no longer appears, several similar ads can be found here. I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights."
Well, from the sound of Eminem's going rate ($10million plus) it might be cheaper to just use the songs and then pay a smaller settlement fee. Just maybe...
The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
Do the artists have any say in any of this sort of thing? For instance, is it likely Eminem told his people to go after Apple or are his people going after Apple regardless if he likes it or not?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Is it just me, or is this not a big deal? To me this doesn't indicate that Eminem has any problem with other artists sampling his music, but with it being used in commercials without permission. I mean, come on, just because this is Apple and we all love iTunes and the iPod doesn't make it right. Many people view artists allowing their music to be used in commercials as "selling out", and in Eminem's case, I could see this being even more of an issue than normal.
One of the most notorious examples of sampling irony is the Negativland/Coca-Cola connection. The California-based band Negativland, copyright infringers of the highest reverence, "illegally" sampled a 1966 religious record and calls their version of the song "Michael Jackson". Samplist Fatboy Slim decides to sample Negativland's song, licenses the Negativland version of the religious sample from SST records, and also calls the song "Michael Jackson." After Fatboy's ensuing popularity, creative advertising executives decide to license Fatboy Slim's song for a Coca-Cola television commercial. Result: Coca-Cola unwittingly engages in copyright infringement. Negativland, whose calling is to debase advertising on all levels, find their music selling soft drinks. Fatboy Slim deposits a huge check in his bank account.
Negativland writes: "The track 'Michael Jackson' from this Fatboy Slim CD ['Better Living Through Chemistry' (Astralwerks) 1998] samples from the Negativland track 'Michael Jackson' from our 1987 release 'Escape From Noise' on SST Records.
"Stupidly, Fatboy Slim went to SST Records to get permission to use this sample. SST charged him $1000, which they are keeping all for themselves, of course. Besides the fact that Fatboy could have kept his $1000 and taken the sample from us without permission and we wouldn't have cared, the Negativland sample he used was itself appropriated by us without permission from a religious flexi-disc originally issued in 1966. [In fact, a Negativland member LITERALLY stole this record from the basement of a church in Concord CA.]
The article I sampled this from is here
One of the comments on spymac about this sums up the suit.
The song is 5:20 long. A ten year old kid sang 10 seconds of the song or 3.125% of the song. They used no actual music or clips of the song just a kid saying 3.125% of the words to the beat.
So it's a bit either way IMHO. has no music, tunes, singing or the original recording by eminem. I don't know about the legality of it, but I presume with such a minor amount of 'copying', apple's ad agency thought there was no need to get permission, but eminem obviously disagrees.
It has nothing to do with "samples". For those to lazy to look, they're just ads where various people are singing a capella, ostensibly along with the songs on their iPods.
They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.
But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
It wasn't a concert, it was an orchestral version of The Last Time and the sample was barely audible. Regardless, it didn't stop the Rolling Stones from successfully suing for 100% of the publishing rights...
That's only true for a mechanical reproduction. Broadcast rights have to be negotiated.
This provision is what lets Marilyn Manson cover "Tainted Love" and "Sweet Dreams," Type O Negative cover Cinnamon Girl, Tori Amos cover Smells Like Teen Spirit (and, well, every song on StrangeLittleGirl, plus Bad Company on her Under The Pink tour, plus...)
As an aside, it's kind of ironic that Eminem is suing for use of his work, when Dido had no idea he had sampled her work ("Stan") until she heard the CD. Luckily she was "blown away" and agreed to it - and later toured with him...
geek. lawyer.
He wrote it, did he not? That makes it his work, doesn't it?
You ever wonder why no one sings "Happy Birthday To You" on TV? That's right. It's a copyrighted work they would have to pay money to perform.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Here's how it works:
When the Mom-and-Pop band goes into the studio to record an album, they emerge with two related yet discrete products. A collection of songs (the notes, lyrics, chords, tempo, modulations, etc... essentially metric data that can be easily reverse-engineered) and a collection of recordings (the tape or disk, containing the actual bits or electromagnetic flux representing the specific performances of the metric data by musicians).
Look closely on any retail CD you own. The *songs* will be copyright-ed (copywritten?) by the author (as in, "Big Stanky Lovin'" copyright 1999 Herb Stank). Somewhere in the vicinity, there will also be a note that "the copyright in this original sound recording is owned by Universal Music Group". What this means is that Herb Stank may have written the song, but that Universal owns the master tapes of this recording. Usually somewhere in there is the standard disclaimer about "all rights reserved".
The rights that the record companies are reserving are the right to sell CD's; the right to control who performs the recording live; the right to make and sell sheet music of the recording; the right to sell these rights to an interested party. These are all forms of publishing, which is the only thing the record company cares about, because publishing is the only part of the music industry that actually makes money. That little blurb on the CD about "lyrics reprinted by permission"? It's not the songwriter's permission. It's Universal's. And if that blurb weren't on there, technically Universal could sue their own band (and believe me, that's an all too common occurance). And yes, they could decide to get their undies in a bundle and keep you from even printing your lyrics on your own CD. And yes, technically once you sign that dotted line, Universal could sue you for ever performing your own song live.
This might seem like a lot of rights for the record companies to have, considering they didn't write the song. This is why many musicians, independant and otherwise, form their own publishing companies. As long as Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing is the first to obtain the publishing rights to a song (and there's no reason they shouldn't be if the band isn't signed), the Mom and Pop band is in a much better position to negotiate with the record company to retain some of these rights, or to have them revert to Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing after a set period of time, then they would be if they just signed right up to Universal.
So, when rapper X sticks the CD from the Mom-and-Pop Band in his computer, fires up audiograbber and rips off a chunk of "Big Stanky Lovin", written by Herb Stank, performed by the Mom-and-Pop band, published by Mom-and-Pop's Publishing Inc., and (most importantly) OWNED by Universal, there can be four pipers to pay. But usually it's just the big one, since the big one has bought the publishing rights from the littler three. In fact, the most common scenario is that if Universal likes the Mom-and-Pop Band so much, they typically will buy Mom-and-Pop's Publishing as part of the deal. Which still leaves the artists pretty screwed, but at least they got more money.
On the other hand, if rapper X is smart and has his guitar playing friends reverse engineer the metric data contained within the digital (or analog) data of the sound recording, then you eliminate the record company being able to come after you for stealing their recording. OF course, they'll still come after you for stealing their song, but that's almost impossible to prove if you are clever enough...
Some legal protection does still exist for the fair use (although they don't call it that) of this metric data. There are certain legal requirements one must meet when attmpting to copyright a song (you can't copyright a two-note phrase). Etc...
b.echthros
They will never stop until somebody makes the
"Well, talented artists are good enough to make their own music, so they don't have to sample. Eminem couldn't play a musical instrument if Suge Knight was threatening his life..."
Comments like this rub artists like myself the wrong way. Let me paint you all a little picture of my world, maybe this will help in understanding why sampling is part of the industry.
I'm a 3D artist. When you work in 3D, there are a lot of subcategories that one can go into. You can do texturing, character animation and rigging, visual effects, matte painting, and a few others that aren't readily popping into mind. I specialize in modelling with a secondary skill in design. What I mean by that is my talent in other areas isn't so strong. Am I talented a talented? There are lots of people who would say yes. Can I do character animation? Nope, I haven't climbed those steps yet. Does that mean I'm not a 3D artist? No.
So what do I do if I'm commisioned to do a project that requires other areas? Simple, I either license other stuff, or I get another person involved. Right now, I'm working on an Ore facility designed to operate on the surface of an asteroid, it's for a game. I've designed the station, gotten that approved, and now I'm building it. The thing is, my client needs it rendered with a backdrop. He has a very specific goal in mind and I have to complete it. I have so much time to get it done in. One of the things I need to do is make a realistic terrain for it. Well, that's not really my area. For one thing, I need textures for it. (note: What I'm about to describe is like sampling.) Now, I can't go to an asteroid and take some photos that I own the copyright to. So what do I do? Well, Nasa is pretty darn cool. They've got a lot of photos of the surface of the moon and on Mars that I can put together in Photoshop to create a new environment. This involves taking small pieces of their images and putting them together into something new. Nasa's agreement is pretty open about that. It says I can use their images provided I say "Courtesy of Nasa" in the credits. In addition to those images, I have a royatly free photo CD I purchased that more or less says "use it as you like, you've paid for it." So here I am, 'sampling' other artists work to meet this goal. I'm doing this LEGITIMATELY and ethically. (In other words, they'd be happy for this use.)
Now, there are exceptional artists out there who'd do it all. They'd probably design it, build it, hand-paint the textures, and do a lot of other things that somebody with years (decades even) of experience under their belts. (Craig Mullins, for example.) However, I'm not there yet. Most artists aren't. That's not because they suck, it's because it takes a long time to get there.
So let's get to Eminem here. So he can't play an instrument. So? That's not his talent. His talent is the lyrics he puts together. I can't say I'm a fan of his, but I have listened to his music, and he's definitely a guy with a style about him, and is most definitely an artist. Has he sampled music? Yep. There's a song called Stan that uses some chunks of some of Dido's work in it. If he were a 'talented artist', the way the parent poster is describing them, would this be a bad move? No for a couple of reasons: 1.) It fits the song. You have to hear it to understand, but it was an appropriate choice. 2.) He licensed use of that song. The result? A better piece. Could he have pursued his own? Eh maybe. Would that be automatically better? Automatically? No. It really depends on what your goal is.
Sampling is not an evil. It can be done wrong. You can grab a riff from a song and not get the permission to do it, that'd be awful. Artists are very protective of their work. I could grab a texture from somewhere and not acquire for it, that'd be equally wrong. Somebody could download somebody else's work and put their name on it
"Derp de derp."